Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 08:52:37 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: time_t definition is worng Message-ID: <20010602085237.A73968@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200106020823.f528N5O98998@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 01:23:05AM -0700 References: <200106012318.f51NI8w38590@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <200106020823.f528N5O98998@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 01:23:05AM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote: > Yes, I know all that. The problem isn't that you couldn't have an > unsigned time_t, the problem is that there are vast amounts of software > already out there that would "break mysteriously" if you did. So, > like the int<->long problem, the best thing to do is not rock the boat. > That means for maximum portability time_t has to be a signed long. Not > int, not unsigned int, not unsigned long... just 'long'. There is not enough context here for me to get any idea what the issue is. This email argued signed vs. unsigned, and that has nothing to do with time_t being an int. Since on IA-32 int == long, the only issue is what ones uses in printf() and scanf(). I have not seen anyone having a problem with this yet. So I ask you to bring this up on freebsd-arch@freebsd.org why time_t needs to be a long. If you had more multi-platform concerns you would understand why having as consistent defintions of things is best for FreeBSD. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010602085237.A73968>